Relationship between uniform connectedness and proximity in perceptual grouping

Palmer and Rock proposed that uniform connectedness (UC) occurs prior to classical Gestalt factors to define the primitive units for visual perception. Han, Humphreys and Chen, however, found that grouping by proximity can take place as quickly as that based on UC in a letter discrimination task. The present study employed a letter detection task to examine the relationship between UC and proximity grouping in 3 experiments. We showed that reaction times to targets defined by proximity or UC were equally fast when one or two global objects were presented in the visual field. However, as the number of global objects was increased, responses were faster to targets defined by UC than to targets defined by proximity. In addition, the advantage of UC over proximity was not affected by the space between global objects. The results suggest that UC was more effective than proximity in forming perceptual units under multiple object conditions. Possible reasons for this finding are discussed.

[1]  M. Wertheimer.  Untersuchungen zur Lehre von der Gestalt. II , 1923 .

[2]  G. Humphreys,et al.  Uniform connectedness and classical gestalt principles of perceptual grouping , 1999, Perception & psychophysics.

[3]  S. Palmer,et al.  Rethinking perceptual organization: The role of uniform connectedness , 1994, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[4]  J. Enns,et al.  Access to Global and Local Properties in Visual Search for Compound Stimuli , 1995 .

[5]  J. R. Pomerantz.  Global and local precedence: selective attention in form and motion perception. , 1983, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[6]  J. Hummel,et al.  Connectedness and the integration of parts with relations in shape perception. , 1998, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[7]  R. Kimchi,et al.  The perceptual organization of visual objects: a microgenetic analysis , 2000, Vision Research.

[8]  D. Sagi,et al.  Perceptual grouping by similarity and proximity: Experimental results can be predicted by intensity autocorrelations , 1995, Vision Research.

[9]  R. Wilton,et al.  Grouping by Proximity or Similarity? Competition between the Gestalt Principles in Vision , 1998, Perception.

[10]  E. Yund,et al.  Attentional selection in the processing of hierarchical patterns: an ERP study , 2001, Biological Psychology.

[11]  J. Duncan,et al.  Visual search and stimulus similarity. , 1989, Psychological review.

[12]  D. Kahneman,et al.  The cost of visual filtering. , 1983, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[13]  R. Kimchi.  Uniform connectedness and grouping in the perceptual organization of hierarchical patterns. , 1998, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[14]  H. J. Muller,et al.  SEarch via Recursive Rejection (SERR): A Connectionist Model of Visual Search , 1993, Cognitive Psychology.

[15]  D L Woods,et al.  Neural substrates for visual perceptual grouping in humans. , 2001, Psychophysiology.

[16]  G W Humphreys,et al.  Parallel and competitive processes in hierarchical analysis: perceptual grouping and encoding of closure. , 1999, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[17]  G W Humphreys,et al.  Interactions between perceptual organization based on Gestalt laws and those based on hierarchical processing , 1999, Perception & psychophysics.

[18]  W. Köhler.  An Aspect of Gestalt Psychology , 1925 .

[19]  M. Farah,et al.  Is visual image segmentation a bottom-up or an interactive process? , 1997, Perception & psychophysics.

[20]  S. Palmer.  Common region: A new principle of perceptual grouping , 1992, Cognitive Psychology.

[21]  Arthur F. Kramer,et al.  14. Object-based visual selection and the principle of uniform conneectedness , 1996 .

[22]  Arthur P. Ginsburg,et al.  Spatial filtering and visual form perception. , 1986 .

[23]  G R Grice,et al.  Forest before trees? It depends where you look , 1983, Perception & psychophysics.

[24]  S. E. Watson,et al.  Object-based visual selective attention and perceptual organization , 1999, Perception & psychophysics.

[25]  A. Woodward.  Infants selectively encode the goal object of an actor's reach , 1998, Cognition.

[26]  Jeremy M. Wolfe,et al.  Just Say No: How Are Visual Searches Terminated When There Is No Target Present? , 1996, Cognitive Psychology.

[27]  M. Peterson.  Object Recognition Processes Can and Do Operate Before Figure–Ground Organization , 1994 .

[28]  I. Rock,et al.  Perceptual organization and attention , 1992, Cognitive Psychology.

[29]  D. Navon.  Forest before trees: The precedence of global features in visual perception , 1977, Cognitive Psychology.

[30]  Johan Wagemans,et al.  Effects of physical connectivity on the representational unity of multi-part configurations , 1998, Cognition.

[31]  Glyn W. Humphreys,et al.  Segmentation and selection contribute to local processing in hierarchical analysis , 2002, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.